IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.11.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.No.1496 of 2008 in C.S.No.292 of 2008 ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following relief:
– To pass a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.13,18,330/- to the plaintiffs along with further interest @ 7.5% from the date of presentation of the plaint till the date of realisation of the entire amount; and for costs.
3. The same plaintiffs filed the application with the prayer as under:
– To direct the defendants to deposit jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.13,18,330/- being the estate of deceased K.Ramji together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. From the date of plaint till depositing the amount by the respondents/defendants into the Court, pending disposal of the suit.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs would submit that the applicants took enormous efforts to get the notice served personally on R1, but that could not be done; however, substituted service was taken concerning R1, because her whereabouts were not known. Whereas, the learned counsel for R2 appeared and filed the counter.
5.The point for consideration is as to whether both the respondents/defendants could be directed to deposit the sum of Rs.13,18,330/-into the Court?
6. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that one deceased Ramji died issueless. However, during his lifetime he had fixed deposit to a tune of Rs.12 lakhs in D2 Bank. He died intestate. Whereupon the applicants approached the Bank concerned for releasing the amount on the ground that the applicants happen to be the full blood brothers and sisters of the deceased. However, the Bank despite receipt of the objections from the applicants not to release the amount in favour of any other person, simply ignored the Reserve Bank of India Rules and Regulations and the law concerned, and released the amount in favour of some third party.
7. Whereas, the learned counsel for R2/Bank by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as set forth by the learned counsel for the applicants would detail and delineate that the Bank strictly adhered to the Reserve Bank of India Rules and Regulations and released the amounts due under the Fixed Deposit of the deceased in favour of the nominee, viz. D1 concerned. The learned counsel also filed extract of the ledger concerned and highlighted that Bankers Cheque No.00746_20070110, for a sum of Rs.12,06,549.80 was issued in the name of D1, namely Girija Harith as a nominee validly on 10.01.2007 and she was entitled to receive the dues and even legal heirs cannot object to it and the Bank could not refuse to pay the amount due in favour of the nominee merely based on the objections filed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for R2 also would convincingly and correctly by drawing the attention of this Court to the procedure for settlement at paragraph 2(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Rules and Regulations which is extracted hereunder, would submit his argument that correctly and appropriately the Bank released the amount in favour of the nominee.
“2.1. As you are aware, in the case of deposit accounts where the depositor had utilized the nomination facility and made a valid nomination or where the account was opened with the survivorship clause (‘either or survivor’, or ‘anyone or survivor’, or ‘former or survivor’ or ‘latter or survivor’), the payment of the balance in the deposit account to the survivor(s)/nominee of a deceased deposit account holder represents a valid discharge of the bank’s liability provided:
a. the bank has exercised due care and caution in establishing the identity of the survivor(s)/nominee and the fact of death of the account holder, through appropriate documentary evidence; ….”
8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the applicants would vehemently argue that within three days after receipt of the objection from the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of the deceased, the Bank simply ignoring their legitimate claim over the Fixed Deposit released it illegally and hence the Bank is bound to deposit the amount concerning the Fixed Deposit.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the interest accrued concerning the Fixed Deposit was credited in the Savings Bank account of the deceased and relating to such Savings Bank account is concerned, D1 was not the nominee and the Bank paid the amount found in the Savings Bank account in favour of the applicants after getting the identity point; while it is not known as to how the Bank was justified in releasing the Fixed Deposit amount in favour of the nominee and not in favour of the applicants at least by getting a similar indemnity bond.
10. The learned counsel for R2/Bank would convincingly submit that there is no provision for getting indemnity bond from the nominee and releasing the Fixed Deposit amount. What is required for the Bank is to ascertain, whether there is a valid nomination, and if the nominee disclosing her identity demands for the amount due, the Bank is bound to pay, as otherwise, the Bank will be in soup. In this case, the nominee appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly, legally demanded the Fixed Deposit amount in her capacity as nominee, whereupon, the Bank correctly responded, over which the applicants even though might be legal heirs of the deceased could have no claim against the Bank concerned. However, the Bank was justified in paying the Savings Bank account dues to the applicants who are the legal heirs, because, so far the Savings Bank account is concerned, R1 was not appointed as nominee. As such, the Bank in all fairness performed its duty properly and there could be no grievance as against the Bank at the instance of the applicants.
11. The learned counsel for the applicants inviting the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers at pages 36 and 46 would submit that in the formats concerned, the name of the nominee is found mentioned as Girija Harith. He would also submit that at page 51, while nominating the nominee, first it is found written as Girija Harith and it was struck down and written as Girith Harith. As such, despite all these discrepancies, the Bank released the amount in favour of D1.
12. Whereas, the learned counsel for D2 would submit that the discrepancies as highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be taken as material ones for rejecting the claim of the nominee.
13. I could see that the distinction which is sought to be made on the applicants’ side is not significant. However, I do not conclusively decide it and it is for them to further prove their case during trial. But so far as this application is concerned, based on that slight discrepancy alone the Bank cannot be called upon to deposit the amount which it had already paid in favour of D1, the nominee and as such, no order could be passed as against the Bank. Whereas R1 is bound to account to the legal heirs, but her whereabouts are not known and in such a case, an exparte order could be passed as against D1 directing her to deposit the amount in Court immediately.
gms